Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that routing behavior can change live whenever a candidate is under test, and states that no candidate is currently active so it exactly matches ask_pipeworx right now. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, which already mark it read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the key relationship to ask_pipeworx, followed by current status and usage guidance. It contains a few highly specific details, such as the retirement date, but all of them support the agent's decision-making.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a natural-language universal router, the description provides the essential facts: it is fully functional, identical to ask_pipeworx, uses the same arguments, and has the same response shape. It does not enumerate output details, but the reference to ask_pipeworx plus strong schema and annotation coverage makes this adequately complete for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the question parameter and its five aliases, so the description does not need to add much parameter detail. It only says that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is consistent but not a significant semantic addition over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx that performs the same universal routing across 5,908 tools with identical arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge where candidate routing improvements are tested.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. It names the stable alternative and gives a clear selection condition, though it does not provide an explicit 'when not to use' exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.